As noted above the 13th Amendment passed the House and Senate before the war was over and was declared within 8 months of Lee's surrender as a direct result of the Civil War.
Probably because it was more pragmatic to tackle the CSA aggression at Fort Sumter head on instead of quibbling over the 13th Amendment in April 1861.

It must be historically noted that the Northern Yankee state of New Jersey rejected the 13th Amendment on March 16, 1865. They still had slaves and did not want to give them up.

Union states of Delaware and Kentucky also rejected the 13th Amendment and would not ratify it until many years later.

As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

Here are the Declaration Of Causes Of Seceding States RWBlue. http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html Here is the Cornerstone Speech. Look at paragraph 9 in particular. http://teachingamericanhistory.org/l...cumentprint=76The new constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions African slavery as it exists amongst us the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. Alexander H. Stephens Vice President of the CSA March 21 1861.

Lots of discussion about slavery in these documents of independance. Maybe it was about slavery after all...at least partly.

It must be historically noted that the Northern Yankee state of New Jersey rejected the 13th Amendment on March 16, 1865. They still had slaves and did not want to give them up.

Union states of Delaware and Kentucky also rejected the 13th Amendment and would not ratify it until many years later.

The 13th Amendment still passed the Senate in April 1864. It still passed the House in January 1865. It was still adopted in December 1865.

Contrast that with Article 1 Section 9 .4 of the Constitution of the CSA "No bill of attainder, ex post fact law or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." http://www.usconstitution.net/csa.html#A1Sec9

Quote:

As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

It must be historically noted that the Northern Yankee state of New Jersey rejected the 13th Amendment on March 16, 1865. They still had slaves and did not want to give them up.

As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

You know, revisionist history is one thing, but you far exceed even that label. NJ outlawed slavery in 1810. The youngest slave possible in NJ would have been in his late 50s, well beyond the life expectancy of people in that day and age. Besides which, the 1860 census shows that there was a grand total of 0 slaves in the state. I know this has been pointed out to you before. So your claim that the state "didn't want to give them up" can only be seen as a lie.

For your Ft. Sumter claim, its significant that you use the weasle word "proven". The Union, in remarkable mercy for that day and age, chose to not pursue charges of treason against anyone. Even so, it's trivial to prove that firing on a US installation and US soldiers is a criminal act.

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

As for Fort Sumter... There was nothing ever proven illegal about SC seceding and taking the Fort.

Fort Sumter was the legal property of the Union. It was obtained from SC legally and the SC legislature gave up all claim to the property.

So in short you are trying to claim there is nothing illegal in seizing someone else's property by force.

Quote:

Committee on Federal Relations
In the House of Representatives, December 31st, 1836
"The Committee on Federal relations, to which was referred the Governor's message, relating to the site of Fort Sumter, in the harbour of Charleston, and the report of the Committee on Federal Relations from the Senate on the same subject, beg leave to Report by Resolution:
"Resolved, That this state do cede to the United States, all the right, title and claim of South Carolina to the site of Fort Sumter and the requisite quantity of adjacent territory, Provided, That all processes, civil and criminal issued under the authority of this State, or any officer thereof, shall and may be served and executed upon the same, and any person there being who may be implicated by law; and that the said land, site and structures enumerated, shall be forever exempt from liability to pay any tax to this state.
"Also resolved: That the State shall extinguish the claim, if any valid claim there be, of any individuals under the authority of this State, to the land hereby ceded.
"Also resolved, That the Attorney-General be instructed to investigate the claims of Wm. Laval and others to the site of Fort Sumter, and adjacent land contiguous thereto; and if he shall be of the opinion that these parties have a legal title to the said land, that Generals Hamilton and Hayne and James L. Pringle, Thomas Bennett and Ker. Boyce, Esquires, be appointed Commissioners on behalf of the State, to appraise the value thereof. If the Attorney-General should be of the opinion that the said title is not legal and valid, that he proceed by seire facius of other proper legal proceedings to have the same avoided; and that the Attorney-General and the said Commissioners report to the Legislature at its next session.
"Resolved, That this House to agree. Ordered that it be sent to the Senate for concurrence. By order of the House:

"T. W. Glover, C. H. R."
"In Senate, December 21st, 1836
"Resolved, that the Senate do concur. Ordered that it be returned to the House of Representatives, By order:

Jacob Warly, C. S.
__________________

Even Robert E. Lee knew secession was not legal.

Quote:

"Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession." - Robert E. Lee, January 23, 1861

And since you are so fond of SCOTUS rulings ( at least the Dred Scott one) here are some SCOTUS rulings for you on secession.

Quote:

White v. Hart

"The doctrine of secession is a doctrine of treason, and practical secession is practical treason, seeking to give itself triumph by revolutionary violence. The late rebellion was without any element of right or sanction of law. The duration and magnitude of the war did not change its character. In some respects it was not unlike the insurrection of a county or other municipal subdivision of territory against the State to which it belongs. In such cases the State has inherently the right to use all the means necessary to put down the resistance to its authority, and restore peace, order, and obedience to law. If need be, it has the right also to call on the government of the Union for the requisite aid to that end. Whatever precautionary or penal measures the State may take when the insurrection is suppressed, the proposition would be a strange one to maintain, that while it lasted the county was not a part of the State, and hence was absolved from the duties, liabilities, and restrictions which would have been incumbent upon it if it had remained in its normal condition and relations. The power exercised in putting down the late rebellion is given expressly by the Constitution to Congress. That body made the laws and the President executed them. The granted power carried with it not only the right to use the requisite means, but it reached further and carried with it also the authority to guard against the renewal of the conflict, and to remedy the evils arising from it in so far as that could be effected by appropriate legislation. At no time were the rebellious States out of the pale of the Union. Their rights under the Constitution were suspended, but not destroyed. Their constitutional duties and obligations were unaffected and remained the same." [80 US 646, 650-651]

Thorington v. Smith

"It cannot be questioned that the Confederate notes were issued in furtherance of an unlawful attempt to overthrow the government of the United States, by insurrectionary force." [75 US 1, 7]

Hickman v. Jones

"The rebellion out of which the war grew was without any legal sanction. In the eye of the law, it had the same properties as if it had been the insurrection of a county or smaller municipal territory against the State to which it belonged. ... The union of the States, for all the purposes of the Constitution, is as perfect and indissoluble as the union of the integral parts of the States themselves; and nothing but revolutionary violence can, in either case, destroy the ties which hold the parts together. ... The rebellion was simply an armed resistance to the rightful authority of the sovereign." [76 US 197, 200]

Williams v. Bruffy

"The pleas aver that a confederation was formed by Virginia and other States, called the Confederate States of America, and that under a law of this confederation, enforced in Virginia, the debt due to the plaintiffs was sequestrated. Now, the Constitution of the United States prohibits any treaty, alliance, or confederation by one State with another. The organization whose enactment is pleaded cannot, therefore, be regarded in this court as having any legal existence." [96 US 176, 182]

Lamar v. Micou

"The so-called Confederate government was in no sense a lawful government, but was a mere government of force, having its origin and foundation in rebellion against the United States." [112 US 452. 476]

__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

The wealth in slaves' aggregate value held in the South translated into todays dollars would be five to six trillion dollars. See "The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln" Larry Tagg. As I have stated in many other posts; the Southern slaves were probably treated far better than in any other country in the history of the world. Had the slaves been treated as badly is commonly taught, they would have revolted long before the war and or during the war as was Lincoln's plan with his famous proclamation. The proclamation caused thousands of Union troops to desert. Indiana considered leaving the Union over it. The New York "draft riots", 1863, were caused by it. Yeah, the Union, and the war, was all about ending slavery. And before any Confederacy haters go on a rampage about the "evils" of slavery, I never said the "institution" was wonderfull. I have said repeatedly that it WORKED. When I see some symphathy for all the other slaves kept throughout history, I will be happy to discuss it with anyone here. And. Just for the tally books concerning the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused even to see Southern peace envoys. He knew he had time on his side. Lincoln proposed the 13th amendment in March of 1861. Fort Sumter wasn't fired on till April 9. The 13 amendment, boiled down, said the Southern states could keep their slaves; Just accept the proposed 13 amendment and it would all be over. Just accept our tarifs, and the 13th is yours. The North and Lincoln was willing to sell out the slaves for higher taxes. But what is the mantra accepted by the masses? The war was all about ending slavery.

And. Just for the tally books concerning the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused even to see Southern peace envoys.

Why should he have done that? Any such action on his part could have been construed as tacit recognition of the legitimacy of the CSA.

Quote:

He knew he had time on his side. Lincoln proposed the 13th amendment in March of 1861. Fort Sumter wasn't fired on till April 9. The 13 amendment, boiled down, said the Southern states could keep their slaves; Just accept the proposed 13 amendment and it would all be over. Just accept our tarifs, and the 13th is yours. The North and Lincoln was willing to sell out the slaves for higher taxes. But what is the mantra accepted by the masses? The war was all about ending slavery.

Gray_Rider
Deo Vindice!

Amendment XIII
Section 1 Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2 Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

What part of the 13 Amendment allows slavery to continue in any area under US jurisdiction Gray_Rider?

What part of the 13 Amendment allows slavery to continue in any area under US jurisdiction Gray_Rider?

You've quoted the ratified 13th. Prior to that, there were several proposed Amendments that went nowhere, but would have been the 13th. I'm unaware of what he means to the tariffs associated with any such proposals. Google the Crittenden Compromise to see some of the attempts to keep the South in the fold.

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

The wealth in slaves' aggregate value held in the South translated into todays dollars would be five to six trillion dollars.

So what? Lincoln plainly stated he would not interfere with slavery where it already existed. He would however prevent it from spreading into new territories and new states, and it was THIS that was intolerable to the south.They demanded the right to bring slavery into the territories and any new states.

Quote:

the Southern slaves were probably treated far better than in any other country in the history of the world. Had the slaves been treated as badly is commonly taught, they would have revolted long before the war

there were slave revolts and the south lived in fear of them.

Quote:

And. Just for the tally books concerning the firing on Fort Sumter. Lincoln refused even to see Southern peace envoys.

Of course refused to see them, to do so would have given the Confederacy the appearance of legitimacy which Lincoln was not willing to do. President Buchanan Received the emissary of The State of South Carolina whose message was surrender Fort Sumter or prepare for war.

Quote:

Just accept our tarifs, and the 13th is yours. The North and Lincoln was willing to sell out the slaves for higher taxes. But what is the mantra accepted by the masses? The war was all about ending slavery.

Except that tariffs were never brought up in the articles of secession . The "tariffs" argument was created after the south lost and tried to rationalize why their rebellion was noble and legitimate.

To be sure Tariffs were a matter of discord between the North and the south. But Not a single article of secession mentions Tariffs as a reason for secession.

__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

You've quoted the ratified 13th. Prior to that, there were several proposed Amendments that went nowhere, but would have been the 13th. I'm unaware of what he means to the tariffs associated with any such proposals. Google the Crittenden Compromise to see some of the attempts to keep the South in the fold.

The one Grey rider is referring to is the Corwin amendment which passed Both houses but was never ratified. For some strange reason the "Peaceful" South was not interested in the amendment that would have constitutionally protected slavery in their existing states.

Here is the amendment as passed, and it was passed in Feb 1861, not proposed by Lincoln in March 1861 as Grey rider claims.

Quote:

No amendment shall be made to the Constitution which will authorize or give to Congress the power to abolish or interfere, within any State, with the domestic institutions thereof, including that of persons held to labor or service by the laws of said State.

Lincoln urged the states to ratify it.

__________________
“Right is still right, even if nobody is doing it. And wrong is still wrong, even if everybody is doing it.”—Texas Ranger saying.

The one Grey rider is referring to is the Corwin amendment which passed Both houses but was never ratified. For some strange reason the "Peaceful" South was not interested in the amendment that would have constitutionally protected slavery in their existing states.

Here is the amendment as passed, and it was passed in Feb 1861, not proposed by Lincoln in March 1861 as Grey rider claims.

Lincoln urged the states to ratify it.

That had nothing to do with tariffs, either. GR seems to be claiming a quid pro quo between Northern acceptance of slavery and Southern acceptance of tariffs. I still don't know what he meant.

Anyway, notice the repeated offers from the North to bend on slavery and preserve the Union, even with Lincoln elected. But the Fire-eaters carried too much clout in the South. They had too much wealth tied in human flesh and too much control over press and pulpit. The CS soldier may have fought for a lot of reasons, but he was manipulated into fighting to preserve wealth: slavery. Rich man's war, Poor man's fight.

__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle

Are there any old farts here who would like to go to a reenactment of Hamburger Hill or a thousand other bad dreams?

I think reenacting Grenada might be interesting. Let me go lie on the beach for a while. Fly around in an helo and see the island.

I would suggest reenacting D-day, but I think freeing France twice last century is enough. If I landed there with a gun they probably would not be happy and might start shooting real bullets.

__________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".

...Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, 1848.

"Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world".

...Abraham Lincoln on the floor of the United States House of Representatives, 1848.

"This is a world of compensations; and he who would be no slave, must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it." Abraham Lincoln, April 6, 1859. Letter to Henry Pierce.

"No bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves shall be passed." Constitution of the CSA Article 1, Section 9.4 Adopted March 11, 1861. Too bad Natty, no more slaves for you.

"Whenever any form of government is destructive of these ends [life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness] it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government in such form as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety and happiness.